Note: the contents of this page as well as those which precede and follow, must be read as a continuation and/or overlap in order that the continuity about
a relationship to/with the dichotomous arrangement of the idea that one could possibly talk seriously about peace from a different perspective as well as
the typical dichotomous assignment of Artificial Intelligence (such as the usage of zeros and
ones used in computer programming) ... will not be lost (such as war being frequently used to describe an absence of peace and vice-versa). However, if your
mind is prone to being distracted by timed or untimed commercialization (such as that seen in various types of American-based television, radio, news media and
magazine publishing... not to mention the average classroom which carries over into the everyday workplace), you may be unable to sustain prolonged exposures to
divergent ideas about a singular topic without becoming confused, unless the information is provided in a very simplistic manner.

While the cyclic nature of peace (and war, and poverty, and "professional"... white collar criminality, disease, etc...) can be portrayed in
analogy with the motion of a wheel with or without an attachment to an axle, other analogies are possible, such as with the topic of toys and games.
For many, discussions, such as peace and war represent little more than variations of other variations of other variations of different social
game venues. Instead of expressing the theatrical notion that "all the world's a stage and we are but actors", or that "we are all cogs in a wheel",
we could say we are all targets in a shooting tournament, or prey in a very large game of predation, or various other analogies one might want to
include in this list.

And so we begin this essay with an analogy between peace/war and toys/games. Yet, has any of the analogies thus far in the series helped us to
get closer to obtaining a sustained peace... or those who will use the information to buttress an interest in perpetrating a war? How many more lives
in how many more centuries will be lost due to an inability of humanity to analyze what is meant by peace in terms of the on-going deterioration of
this planet's resources and the alteration of belief systems caused by a required adjustment as a means of maintaining some measure of equilibrium in
the deteriorating conditions?

Should we use the model of some old game like chess or checkers or some new electronic-driven exercise with which to make a parallel to peace and
war? How about writing another "War and Peace" novel by Tolstoy (whose name can be hyphenated to reveal— Tols-"toy"—) and is an example
of what could be cited as part of large "publishing game":

War and Peace novel by Tols-toy

(War and Peace is an) epic historical novel by Leo Tolstoy, originally published as Voyna i mir in 1865-69. This panoramic study of early
19th-century Russian society, noted for its mastery of realistic detail and variety of psychological analysis, is generally regarded as one of the
world's greatest novels.

War and Peace is primarily concerned with the histories of five aristocratic families—particularly the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, and the
Rostovs—the members of which are portrayed against a vivid background of Russian social life during the war against Napoleon (1805-14). The
theme of war, however, is subordinate to the story of family life, which involves Tolstoy's optimistic belief in the life-affirming pattern of human
existence. The heroine, Natasha Rostova, for example, reaches her greatest fulfillment through her marriage to Pierre Bezukhov and through motherhood.
The novel also sets forth a theory of history, concluding that there is a minimum of free choice; all is ruled by an inexorable historical
determinism.

Yet, in citing the words "toys" and "games" in relation to peace and war, those involved with such enterprises may argue against such connections
because they feel that peace and war are serious topics while toys and games represent leisure activities... unless of course they are the ones who
are invested in toys and games. Whereas the business of game design and manufacture is big and serious business, this aspect is overlooked when an
analogy is being made between games and peace or war. Likewise with the business of designing and manufacturing toys. There are lots of people who
take the business of toys and games very serious. In fact, the scholars of game history are just as serious about their interest as those who are
interested in the study of peace and war. While some analogies can be taken too far, it is obvious humanity has not been imaginative enough in
designing and manufacturing a model of peace which is sold and bought globally. Instead, the design and manufacture of war is the dominant game in
sales. But if not war between different countries, then internal strife is generated... sometimes artificially by government actions meant to
destabilize an economy because a government didn't want to "play ball" with another government whose rules and regulations effected a gaming
technique of stacking the deck to favor one side over another.

Indeed, the philosophy one holds for a given belief system amounts to game rules that very often can reek of ignorance or hypocrisy. Take the
following example of an American Think Tank concerned with peace:

Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace

(The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace is a) Think tank founded in 1919 (as the Hoover War Library) by Herbert Hoover. It is located
at, but has no institutional connection with, Stanford Univ., in Palo Alto, Cal. It houses source materials on social and political developments
connected to the two World Wars. Resident and visiting scholars in such fields as economics, political science, history, international relations, and
law study, write, and publish the results of their work. Known for its conservative bent, the institution holds that free enterprise and limited
government are foundation blocks of the American way of life, which it undertakes to safeguard through its studies of war and humanity's efforts to
secure peace.

The idea of "Limited Government" being a foundation block of America, and that America is a country practicing Democracy, is pure and simple
hypocrisy. Let us look at the idea of "Limited Government" a little more closely:

The
(very stupid)"Limited Government" Philosophy

Those claiming that reducing the size of government will result in improving the standard of living (i.e. prosperity), are advocating a
reduction in Democracy. Since a Democracy, based on the premise that it is a government Of, By and For All The People; the size of a given
population thus represents the size of government.

For example:

In a nation with 300 million people, the total population, or at least its eligible voters, represents the size of the government when an Actual
Democracy is practiced. However, because an Actual Democracy is not nor ever has been practiced:

There Already Exists an extremely
Limited Peoples Government.

(Hence, the existence of an extremely limited democracy is camouflaged by labeling it a "Representative" Democracy, only that the actual
"Representation" refers to a social system with a government that is rigged against the people from being able to exercise an Actual Democracy...
thus making the need for a Revolution long overdue.)

There is no Actual Democracy because the self-professed Principled members of Congress and the other branches use such a self-proclamation
only when it suits them and not the public at large. Hence, the principled members of the government remain hypocritically silent when the government
is being taken over by a self-made business charlatan whose management style is like a junk yard dog that has no qualms in biting the hand that feeds
it and expects to be respected for it nonetheless, or claiming the whole of the nation is its property to piss and defecate on at will... as well as
expecting its neighboring nations to suffer the indignation of picking up afterwards so that he neither looks or smells bad to his small-minded
followers who harbor an interest in dog, cock and gang fights because it suits their backward world-view of identifying with a mangy howling coyote
allowed to run amuck because so-called principled leaders are only as scrupled as need be for their personal careers, and will throw the whole of the
public under their chauffeured limousine if they think it will provide a smoother ride. Because the members of Congress are afraid to step up to
the plate when they are called upon to do so, the game is thrown due to a forfeit and no one suffers but the public, because there is no means by
which the public can replace the whole of the Congress at the same time... unless we kill them all... or at least enough of them to make the rest
realize how serious we are.

One must therefore conclude that the reason a person or organization wants to reduce the size of the government even more than it already is—
based on their stated principles; is to permit themselves or their supported confederates to gain an advantage which can cement the security of
themselves in a position which, if established, will create provisions that will enable them to exclude any means or methods by which the public could
guarantee for themselves a fuller practice of an Actual Democracy... since an era of a "despotic Democracy" (or Democratic Despotism) would be the
principle order of effected social patriotism to be taught and pledged allegiance to. It would be a "politically correct" orientation that would seek
to buttress its phony perceptions of being something that it is not by aligning itself with those and that who would likewise be viewed as being
privileged because they are similarly thought to exemplify strength and character... such as having sports figures of a national sport championship
attend a public ceremony with one or more government officials who deem themselves to be political champions, because the once strength and character
of an alignment with the church is no longer defined or accepted as a virtue to advantage oneself with in order to exploit the naive and gullible
public. Whereas there is a "separation of church -and- state" law, there should also be a "separation of sports, entertainment, academics -and- state"
law as well. The public should not be forced to practice an hypocrisy just to the fulfill the insatiable vacuous ego of a narcissist.

If we say that out of 300 million there are 200 million voters or 150 million voters, this number represents the size of the government. In
other words, an Actual Peoples Government, is a HUGE government... or at least it is supposed to be under the
practice of an Actual Democracy. A practice that has never been tried before on the Scale of a large nation, but has been accomplished on a smaller
scale such as in the case of Switzerland, which comes closest to the ideal of an Actual Democracy (though a "large nation model" of an
Actual Democracy would no doubt have its own personality and characteristic functionality distinctly different than the phony democracies being
practiced in so many countries):

"Switzerland, with its blend of federalism and direct democracy is unique in the world and is considered central to the country's
political and economic success. And Switzerland is indeed a major economic power, thanks to its long tradition of financial services and high-quality,
specialized manufactures of items such as precision timepieces, optics, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, as well as of specialty foodstuffs such as
Emmentaler cheese and milk chocolate. Switzerland is regularly judged to have among the world's highest standards of living. Switzerland has long been
a model multiethnic, multilingual society, a place in which diverse peoples can live in social harmony and unite in common interest."
[Britannica —Switzerland— excerpt]

Those like the Cato Institute, Citizens United,
Future of Freedom Foundation, Tea Party,
Koch Brothers (via Bernie Sanders), and others in their own way, are
advocating a further reduction in the already sparse practice of Democracy so as to limit its control by those whose perspectives are similar to
their own in advancing personalized agendas as a privileged entitlement that has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting the practice of an enhanced
model of democracy on behalf of the people. Such organizations are not promoting an enhanced form of Democracy, but a different model which permits
the substitution of the current false democracy with a brand that enables their like-minded ilk to take charge of the personalized entitlement system.
In short, there is no actually drafted blueprint like that seen at a construction site... because their's is written on the clouds of supposition
created by a fog of sociability which often accompany the mentality of emotionalized mob characterizations to act as an induced neuroses whereby
truth and reality are convoluted into inebriated states of imagined existence... just like the world's present governments practice.

But let us also include those like the "Common Cause" organization whose aspirations venture the
pronouncement of a blueprint for a presumed greater democracy— yet no actual architectural Blueprint is ever seen... only talked about
like some word-of-mouth fairy-tale whose story-teller expects listeners to invoke some grandiose make-believe imagination as a projected reality
because no actual construction will take place after their very many publicly announced ribbon-cutting ceremonies... which are all little more than a
farcical show-and-tell social amusement meant to attract donations so they can sell their "blueprint" idea like a hawker of treasure maps in order to
make a living for themselves by doing so, or use the amusement as a distraction for some other ulterior motive.

"Blueprint"-specific promoters, like the other mentioned organizations... are advancing their own limited democracy agendas.

Where their primary concern of, by and for the people is to use them as a tool to pry open, wrench, and chisel themselves into a controlling
political position that will permit them to manipulate the public into thinking it as acquired a greater means and purpose of participation in
self-governance; a "Limited Government" philosophy is pure and simple ignorance. It's a modernized form of snake-oil medicine to be used as a
substitute castor oil cure-all (of which only some older readers will be able to recall from childhood.) Like their counter-parts in government,
we can use an analogy between horses and humans to describe those who practice one or another form of "Limited Government" propaganda; as those who
seek to rally their carrot-oriented, four white-socked sway-backed followers to promote their cause which will enable a few (of their like-minded
ilk) to acquire a controlling position that they will thus be able to influence... in order that they can then define the parameters of further social
constraint in an already limited practice of a falsified democracy. They promote only that measure of democracy which they can best benefit from, but
exclude any further development of democracy if it suggests the people are to be provided with a level playing field. They do not want a level
playing field, but a system rigged so that they and 'most important' theirs can best benefit from their standards of manipulation.

If you reduce the size of the government, you are thus telling a greater portion of the population they are not nor ever will be permitted
to participate in a democratic self-governance, or that their participation must be limited according to the dictates of those who want unlimited
or most of the control over a government's resources... because they privately think that the public is too stupid to know any better; except that
the people are supposed to be momentarily smart enough to vote in those who assume themselves to be more intelligent, more experienced, and better
suited to make governing decisions based on a presumed erudite wisdom... according to their self-proclaimed standards.

So who is to be excluded? Shall we exclude all Blacks, Hispanics, Red Necks, Rappers, Jews, White Supremacists,
Christians, Islamists, the LGBTQ colonies, Native Americans, non-land owning whites, women, etc.? How about those with less than a billion dollar
bank account? Or those with less than a 200 I.Q? Or everyone over 30? Or those without a job? Or those who don't belong to a Libertarian, Anarchist,
Communist or Socialist organization? How about all musicians, poets, sports players, or those in some other entertainment industry? How about all
blue collar workers? No collar workers? White collar workers? How about all Asians or Pacific Islanders? How about all Veterans? How about all
non-Veterans? Or how about active duty Military personnel who are used to a non-democratic situation in their command-structured communist and
socialist circumstances of living in what amounts to be a government subsidized welfare community? Since most people are already
disenfranchised from effectively voting in laws based on the opinion of the majority, most people are already excluded from participating in an Actual
Democracy; and instead must defer all judgments to those whose perspectives can't be trusted.

Those calling for a reduction in the size of government are practicing a philosophy of anti-democracy. They
want to disable the public from being able to collectively choose the course of the nation so that they can lead the people by the nose along
a trail which will best benefit their personal agendas under the guise of a (falsified) democracy.

By promoting a philosophy which reveals itself to be a hypocrisy, the current formula of governance is perpetuated (thus the insidious collusion);
because the people feel they might be subjected to a worse situation if the "limited government" philosophy being advocated by some is permitted to
freely practice a like-minded, self-serving free or open market without safeguards. Necessarily so, the usage of any safeguards thus admits that the
so-called "open" or "free" marketplace is only as free and open as those who are placed into positions overseeing their interests. Who is to protect
the people from being exploited when the present Constitution and Bill of Rights permits exploitation as part of its design to limit the public's
ability to effect an enhanced checks-and-balances provision by way of an adopted Peoples Legislative Branch, which would enable it to protect itself?
Both the American and British governments (not to mention so very many others), are logically unsound. And of course they appear to work because
they all share the same stupidity, thereby enabling one another to cite faults in order to bolster their own illegitimized personas of would-be
greatness. If idiocy is the primary game being played from one Nation to the next, there is no standard by which the public can easily access a
model of comparison to which is better suited for humanity. In short, we don't have to live in a world with so many utterly ignorant forms of
government that do so much harm to so many. We can do better than this... but not within the current pathetic practices of government. We need a new
formula of government... a Cenocracy.

If free enterprise and limited government are the foundation blocks or corner stones of the American way of life, and because there is no sustained
peace nor a peace which advocates an absence of poverty, crime, disease, poor nutrition, public exploitation and numerous other necessities; then
such a foundation needs to be recognized for its pathetic architectural design. Like tinker toys, blocks, and erector sets once used by millions of
children whose mentality is being transformed into a subservience of relying on electronic characterizations that have no real world application
because they are modernized forms of fairy tale representations of make-believe; the world is being confronted by continued make-believe versions of
peace... making war more viable because it requires less effort to subdue those who have been trained to be mentally subdued by an electronic world
of fantasy as a substitute reality in reaction to a government that is being played as a game whose house rules permit only a very few to actually
win any actual profitability, because the system is rigged against democracy, against sustained peace, against fairness, against a realization of
humanity's potentials unrestrained by exploiters.

However, the usage of games and toys as a metaphor for peace and war may be driven by an underlying negativity incorporated in the design of toys
and games... acknowledged simply by the fact that most children grow out of playing with most games and toys unless some adult enterprise is attached.
While someone's childhood interest in a game or toy may turn into a life-long habit of collecting memorabilia thereof, others may participate in a
game played in childhood that was fashioned after an adult exercise such as playing some sport such as baseball, football, soccer, bicycle riding,
swimming, running, jumping, etc... Likewise, from playing board games such as chess, checkers, parchisi, backgammon, monopoly, etc., we can find
adult variations because such games were initially fashioned on adult ideas. And though we might want to say that those adults who create games have
the mentality of playful children, we do not often find children developing ideas because of having the mentality of a serious adult.

Looked upon as a toy or game, the analysis of peace as well as war... as a tug-of-wary, have become traditionalized into "think tank" variations
which take on serious formulas of interpretation which effect the presence of a belief system that create stalemates of thought that become erected
into intellectual forms representing social statues that some may label as a monument. While some may think this helps to solidify the repetition of
corrective thinking from one generation to the next, it can also create a culture... like the present one... which perpetuates ideas that do not
effectively assist us in solving problematic social issues such as the increasing lack of a democracy concealed by governments practicing corruption
concealed under flag-waving patriotisms that have become socially standardized as national anthems of hypocrisy and falsely defined as truth. Such a
situation can only provided a shared fantasy of peace corrupted by rationalized excuses for needing war activity to secure superficially designed
situations of peace... as a type of follow-up reward ceremony for those who perpetrated a war or conflict because this is the type of game, with
accompanying toys, that they like to play. Peace is surely difficult when humanity has thousands of people who enjoy playing at the game of war...
and use the circumstances of peace as a period in which tactics and strategies for some future war-related activity can be designed... if not
eventually manufactured into a reality someplace in the world.

And while on the topic of war as a game played out by adults, to be taken up on a later page with respect to an interactive mythology of Western
traditions; let us briefly note that while Western history provides us with two gods and goddesses of war [Athena (Greek goddess of warfare), Minerva
(Roman goddess of warfare), Mars (Roman god of war), Ares (Greek god of war)], there are no similar variations related to peace... despite religious
inclinations to interject Jesus as the denoted Prince of Peace which has been fully disputed by looking at Matthew 10:34 in the bible and can be
found on page 4 in this peace series of essays.

Since we can recognize an absence of a singularly specific "God of Peace" sitting next to those other gods of tradition, one might suggest that
the concept of peace... as a type of thinking, requires a different brain structure. Such a god has not actually existed as a "Major Player" amongst
various echelons of gods because humanity has lacked the requisite brain structure to conceive of such an identity and entity. Whereas "peace" may be
thought of in terms of some emotional state such as love, joy, enlightenment/Eureka!, etc., it did not take on the image of a specific entity... as
a singularly specific idea. Though a village of people may experience a state that we of today might recognize as expressing relative peace, the
circumstances of the condition were not interpreted as being the presence of a specific god. Trying to pin-point the name of a god that represented
"peace" is a difficult task because the human brain doesn't customarily function in such terms.